The Internet has vastly influenced today’s culture; it is an unlimited space for information to be passed around, knowledge and information being today’s most powerful tools. One way to share this information is through file sharing, but many question, should file sharing be considered as stealing or outright theft? Are the penalties for sharing files just? Why do some of the penalties seem so extreme? The landscape of the internet and how we interact with it, the freedoms we enjoy or the digital rights as citizens that are stripped from us will all be decided in current and future legislation around this controversial topic.
On the one side people argue that sharing files is copying from the owner and therefore stealing. The opposing side argues that there is a flaw in this logic, because if one were to entertain the idea of file sharing as copying then that simply implies that they are duplicating, to make another, one more of. Whereas theft means to take away from leaving the former owner without.
Copyright infringement statutory damages in civil litigation can be as high as $150,000 for infringement of a single work. Yes, a single work such as a single song with an iTunes download value of $1. A copyright holder can claim such statutory damages without needing to prove a single penny of damage or loss. Think such sky-high damages aren’t realistic? Think again. In the RIAA’s case against single mother Jammie Thomas, a jury awarded $1,500,000 for the download of 24 songs, with no proof that she had transmitted songs to others. The federal judge thought that was ridiculous and reduced the total award to $54,000 – and the RIAA and MPAA are now arguing strenuously on appeal that the jury verdict should return to the original figure, $62,500 per downloaded song.
In the specific case of Jammie Thomas the issue is about the act of sharing not theft. Because as stated above “A copyright holder can claim such statutory damages without needing to prove a single penny of damage or loss.” Currently copyright lawsuits are fining people in the millions for file sharing. It is the easiest lawsuit that can be filed against someone or an institute by a large corporation of industry. There are even cases of restaurants being fined for playing music that has not been “allowed” by the copyright holder to be played. Some lawyers argue that “the songwriter wants you to use their property—they just want you to pay for it.” As a point of reference, The State of New York wants people, who fail to pay the appropriate fare on the subway, to be subject to a fine of a 100 dollars. The person who abuses a tax payer funded public transport system faces no jail time nor prosecution, but if they share a song online, find themselves facing a million dollar judgment. So why are the penalties so extreme?
In court, file sharing has been portrayed as a breach of copyright laws. The music industry in particular has filed many lawsuits against people who share their musical collections. Many Internet users are frustrated at the ethics breach, arguing that the Internet is a free and open space for people to connect and share with one another. This has also been referred to as a culture fight. Where the music industry deems file sharing stealing, and has realized that they can stand behind copyright laws to make millions by prosecuting people. The music industry also is aware that these people who are being prosecuted are not millionaires and they are therefore trying to make an example of the average Internet user. The average Internet user would call this “stealing” a silly kindergarten dispute against “sharing with their friends”. Today’s society is revolving around the Internet and file sharing has become an extremely large aspect of it. This is one of the main reasons as to why the penalty for copyright infringement is so high; to try and scare people from sharing files when in reality the copyright law should be moving with the change in modern technology rather than against it. For example, in Canada the money that is taxed for every blank CD or DVD gets redistributed among Canadian artists. The courts have recognized that today’s internet community is involved in file sharing and has ruled that the taxed money justifies the sharing of media or information that will very likely end up being burned onto the blank disc.
Radiohead’s Ed O’Brien puts it into perspective when he states that when he was a kid he too would share music with his friends, calling it “innocent” and “in the spirit of discovering new music” therefore he is accepting towards sharing. However he is upset with those who take shared files and try to make money off of it. Hip Hop artist Lilly Allen has taken her own stance, understanding that file sharing is a mass cultural occurrence. Therefore she has put her album on the Internet announcing to her fans to “pay what you think it’s worth”. By saying this she has brought the ongoing arguments by the creator and consumer into the light, showing her audience that she will give to them but at the same time having them realize for themselves that the artist gets kicked if they do not make any money off of their productions.
Links
How Does The Penalty For ‘Content Theft’ Match Up With Similar ‘Crimes’?
Think Twice Before Pushing Play
Comments are closed.